Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

No I am Spartacus

 

We are all Spartacus Hebdo....

 

Well, I did ask if he meant summarise. So let’s go with ‘best guess’. still not accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

+1 Spartacus.

 

The feeling is mutual, I’ve no idea who my ‘buddy’ is lest is appears you are suggesting the @The Engineer. I’ve no idea who he is though it’s agreed we share the same views surrounding how business is conducted.

I feel the best way to end this Mark is for you and your small cohort of buddies to stop biting back, if this is ‘screwing with your mind’ its probably in your best interest not to engage.

I hope you don’t get ‘modded’ as I find you a very interesting individual, with so much to say yet little knowledge of your chosen subject.

All the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am another Spartacus.

Not responding to any of the posts from 2 members.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

 

I'll gladly jump on the Spartacus wagon too!

 

Right, now everyone has had the chance to play the Spartacus card, any hope we could get back to a railway-related thread?

Tom

 

I was really pleased to see that Dapol/Lionheart have entered the narrow gauge ready-to-run world with 0-16.5 Manning Wardles and matching coaches. 7mm RTR has been sadly lacking and I'm optimistic that it'll have a positive impact on awareness of the L&B across the world in a similar way to the Heljan 009 locos. I even gather some of the Dapol/Lionheart team have been to Woody Bay and had a cab ride on Lyn - maybe a Baldwin will follow soon!

https://www.hattons.co.uk/748757/li...een_1903_1913_conditon_digital_so/stockdetail

 

Hopefully there will be something to chew on after the weekend. Is anyone here going, btw?

 

I was riding the train (coach 7, central observation compartment) which Richard (Lionheart) took his footplate ride on LYN. Afterwards, he was heard to say "I wish we'd done LYN first", so I wouldn't bet against it!

 

Firstly I would like to say that I'm another interested observer with no personal involvement with the L&B to date. I would also like to applaud the fantastic results achieved by those at Chelfham, it really is a credit to all involved and a massive source of inspiration to the reborn L&B.

Picking up on all the recent chatter there clearly are differing views as you'd expect with any complex project and there are also clashes of personality. There are also some actions that could've been managed better by all involved.

With regards to a vote of no confidence, whilst the operation at Woody Bay continues to be profitable and break passenger number records, presentation of Woody Bay continues to impress, extension news continues to suggest progress, new loco's and rolling stock are progressing, transformation of Chelfham and Snapper etc etc I find it hard for there to be much support for such a vote. Admin error's are not unheard of, some understandably are more painful than others, but generally the view of the holistic L&B is one of progress and success on multiple fronts. I'm not going to disagree that there is still room for improvement.

With regards to the removal of the extension, if the site was dangerous which the evidence provided suggests it was, then the correct approach would have been to cordon it off and down tools despite this going against the drive and determination of those actually putting in the hard work and graft. The responsibility of site from a liability perspective remains with the registered owners, likewise they could be held account for any work taking place. Dismantling of the extension, despite this being what everyone wanting to see happen, was a far more resource heavy direction which conversely could've had serious consequences for the project if one of the volunteers was hurt whilst taking it down.

To this effect I'm afraid I cannot support the carrying out of the dismantling work without receiving approval. If for instance I took my car to the garage and there was more work that needed to be done, it is my right to think about it and choose the preferred method of direction. If I went to collect said car and the garage had already decided to crack on with the work anyway and present a bill, then I would be upset, disappointed and well within my right to challenge the work carried out without my permission.

If the original requests to remove the extension were not generating adequate response or acknowledgement then it would've a fair more acceptable approach to follow up the original requests on safety grounds, stating that unless heard otherwise, removal of the dangerous structure will take place after a quoted date. This would've covered the backs of those hard working and well meaning volunteers as long as the CIC had an adequate timescale to respond.

What seems apparent to me is that hard working and well minded volunteers have been frustrated by a perceived lack of direction and decision making and took it upon themselves to do something about it without permission. Whilst many can understand the frustration and will support the result, the lack of consideration for rules is perhaps one of the reasons why this has happened in the first place? It also comes across from reported history and responses published here on NP, that some of those involved at Chelfham have already distanced themselves from those responsible due to previous clashes of personality and views, but can also come across as potentially disruptive and ones happy to ignore rules and process. Whilst the continued support and enthusiasm is admired, there does have to be a respect for process.

One final point I feel worth making is one of priorities for the wider L&B. With running and maintaining the operational base at Woody Bay, applying for the TWAO and other extension activities, contacting landowners, negotiating and purchasing, infrastructure and restoration/new build projects and many others all underway, I dare say the restoration of Chelfham if relatively far down the priority list. It therefore may not justify but go someway to explaining why decisions and direction on Chelfham may have been a bit slow/non existence.

I think the overarching observation from all the above is one of communication issues which has also been recognised by others involved too. If everyone involved focused time on improving and repairing those issues that have become apparent (no single party is innocent) then the benefits will be felt by all!

Paul

 

Perhaps it was railway-related anyway ?

https://spartacus-educational.com/railways.htm

 

A quick comment about the idea of a 'vote of no confidence'. Even if one were to be taken and passed, it would serve no practical purpose other than to 'make a point'. There would be no obligation on the Board to do anything about it.

As was shown a few years ago and not many miles away, if the membership do not like the actions of one or more Trustees then the only effective course of action would be to secure a vote for such persons to be ejected from office.

 

I think overall, your approach to the bickering of late (of which I am a player) is a balanced and well assimilated observation. I agree whole heartedly, honest and open communication is key to the running and operation of the railway. I hope Spartacus is in agreement.

That said as an ‘on the ground observer’ I am cautiously not convinced with regards to the point as quoted above.

Whilst there are numerous passengers, what the records do not indicate is how many journeys are paid for. An example might be that a patron pays once but can ride all day for free there after, thus lots of journeys with no return. Further, am aware of passengers receiving a ticket without paying however the books still record a ticket being issued, mates rates if you will.

I’m not against freebies but freebies cost the railway money. Whilst I accept these examples are minor prima facie other examples may exist.

I wonder exactly what income has been generated through ticket sales compared to the number of actual journeys taken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And with another internal battle breaking out on the L&B the interest from the casual donator has been lost, Im not giving my hard earning money to a project which cant manage their internal politics in a civil and swift way.

The 21st centenary L&B showed so much promise, but as with the WSR their own sense of its my trainset your not allowed to play with it as won through dooming the project to fd

 

Mr Conrod1 - Do you perchance have another hat in your wardrobe - a hat on which is inscribed the name 'Monkey Magic'...?

 

As the railway explicitly sells tickets on the basis of their validity for multiple trips, I am uncomfortable about the innuendo and insinuation in this post.

 

I'm not a member of any L and B group but perhaps these alleged free tickets are on offer to members. And members do tend to support the sales counters.

There are signs at W B saying a purchaser can travel more than once, so it is part of the offering but apart from enthusiasts on Gala Days ringing the haulage changes how many visitors would want to travel the same shortish bit of line even twice let alone ride all day.

I would be very surprised if claimed passenger numbers are based on anything except numbers of tickets issued -- certainly not on the ground observation.

 

This page https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/files/pdfs/LandB_CIC_Share_Application_Notes.pdf on the L&B website explains how you too can get 'free tickets'!